Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475144 Jason Tibbitts <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <[email protected]> 2008-12-12 21:11:19 EDT --- A few other comments: The license on the most of the source files that I looked at indicate GPLv3 or later, though some indicate version 2 or later. Combined, these would simply be "GPLv3 or later", which would imply a Licence: tag of "GPLv3+". However, the program itself, in its help output, explicitly says "GPLv2". Upstream needs to clarify the situation. The %description should be trimmed a bit. Really only the first paragraph is appropriate for a package description, but it could also really use some definition of "metalink". rpmlint has one complaint: metalink.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/metalink-0.3.5/example/gen.sh Generally documentation isn't executable, but it's not usually a review blocker unless the documentation carries additional dependencies that the base package doesn't. You should be OK. It would be really nice if this had a manpage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
